The way to build the iTV is to make sure it's 'guts' can be upgraded every few years without having to buy a new 'monitor/screen'. The guts are the processor/graphic chip, etc.

They can do this buy making a 'guts' that can be removed and swapped with a new one and just having it be in the base/stand/back of the TV. Something you literally just slide out and slide back in and no tech/experience required.

So if your TV ships with say the A6X guts this year and 2 years from now you want to upgrade to the A8X, you just go to the Apple store and buy the new upgrade tray and plug it in and there is your new updated Apple TV for something like $149.

Surely this becomes a set-top-box.

I still maintain there is nothing wrong with a set-top-box. Having the whole TV with non-upgradable/replaceable parts seems silly. I dont however see some sort of hybrid situation where you have the set-top box built into the TV, but is removable. I just dont see it happening.

I'm somewhat shocked at the people eschewing the idea of a set-top-box. This is clearly a market that Apple will need to take by storm and succeed quickly if they are going to succeed at all. The only plausible way to do that is to deliver the package in the form of a low-cost STB that is easy to connect and start using.

I agree that there are significant advantages to an integrated television set, but the reality is that people will always have set-top-boxes for various tasks (Blu-ray player, audio receiver, etc). Over time the purposes will change and Apple can aspire to be the only box people need, but those that are even semi-serious about home entertainment will never have just a TV set or just a TV set with a single STB unless Apple is willing to integrate things that they have long ignored (legacy optical drives, hi-fi audio, etc).

As much as people make of Apple being "anti-consumer", having a set-top-box is actually more consumer friendly, as it will be easier to upgrade when new tech becomes available than a full-blown television. This also helps Apple with sales in the long-run.

Revolutionizing the TV/entertainment industry isn't going to start at a $1,999.99 price point. It is going to start at $99 or $199.

We've been on DirecTV for the last 12 years, and cannot (and will not either!) switch to anything else. We have no landline internet capability, and won't anytime soon. Obviously, we are not good candidates for an Apple TV, since I don't see what capabilities it could possibly give us. We can't do on-line gaming, can't stream Netflix or Hulu, can't do on-demand, and the list goes on. Oh, and there are 30 million of us here in the US that are simply going to be left out in the cold. Oh well.

Why would macrumors even post this as this guy is clearly clueless on the state of living room connectivity.

I mean, first, Apple's entire strategy is moving towards Cloud services, so why would they build Terabyte storage in their TV's? A CEO of a cloud streaming service should be aware the local storage is not the future of online devices.

Also, I don't know anybody that plugs anything into their TV anymore. A TV plugs to an A/V receiver and components plug into that. My TV has one HDMI cable connected to the A/V receiver, period. If Apple is going to build a state of the art TV, then remove ALL inputs because any input is about supporting legacy uses of a TV. No need for co-ax and built-in cable, no need for supporting old inputs like component and composite, no need to support legacy which has been Apple's motivation for decades.

Also components do not need to match the dimensions of the TV considering they are sitting in a cabinet that contains the A/V receiver. My Apple TV box does not need to match the thinness of my TV.

This is why this guy is not CEO of Apple and why I have never heard of Brightcove until today and probably never will again.

The future of TV is purely on demand. Not some magical unicorn device that makes the content providers happy. I absolutely do no care to see commercials nor do I want to pay a regular fee to the providers of content.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmwebs

If you dont see commercials, or pay a subscription...how the heck do you expect the TV programs to be made without any money?!

The reason it was never called iTV in the first place is because that's a trademark. It's owned by "ITV", a UK television network, which has existed since the 1950s.

ITV have previously stated that they would never allow Apple to use the name. Because ITV is a globally registered trademark, with offices in the UK, US, and a load of other locations, Apple would never be allowed to use it without ITV giving them permission.

It'd be like Apple trying to release the Apple TiVo without permission from TiVo - it cant happen.

You cant use someone else's brand name in the same market. You wouldn't see some random company launching a TV station called 'Fox TV' as it's taken.

Then you've also got the fact that ITV has had numerous names branded around the ITV name, such as ITV Digital, ITV Sport, ITV Movies, ITV On Demand, ITV Player, etc - all of these are protected.

Trademarks exist for a reason. Apple is usually the first one to start handing out lawsuits when it comes to this kind of stuff.

Does this help?

Law School would help you. Specifically a course on contracts/mergers & acquisitions.

Once again, if you are worried about the naming of the product as of now, you are not understanding the big nor small picture(macro nor micro).

By the way, there are other companies with similar "iTV" trademarks, and Apple could pursue(acquire) that company, then negotiate trademark/copyright terms... Voila! If they don't negotiate, then Apple could take them to court, and Apple could have an upper hand at that given point. (That's SPECULATION... but that is capitalism, and that is Apple.)

To make things even more fun - tell us why or when you think there will be your Apple TV(or iTV)? Then, please elaborate on why we CANNOT call it "iTeeeVeee"?

but I also know of plenty of English houses where it is possible to put it somewhere else than above a fireplace!

A lot of modern houses dont have fireplaces at all. However MOST houses in the UK are old, and they have a fireplace.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkoh

Cmon... get in the game here man, and come up with serious arguments man!

It is a serious argument. Even if you did mount the TV on the wall, it really doesnt work in small houses. Think about it logically.

Take our living room. We have a 3 seater sofa, and two chairs. Our TV is in the corner (A 32" Sammy). If we were to place that above the fireplace, you wouldnt be able to see it from the sofa at all. You would be looking up from the two individual chairs. It just wouldnt work.

Trust me - we tried doing it. We came close to buying a 48" and just couldnt get it to work - the rooms are just too small to make it work without it looking crap and being next to impossible to watch.

Our last TV was purchased about 5 years ago, and it's still going strong. If there's nothing wrong with it, it doesn't get replaced. You'd be a fool to buy a new TV just for the sake of it. They really dont change enough to warrant purchasing a new one.

A lot of people have only recently been able to afford the TV that they really wanted. So yes the replacement cycle is increasing to four or five years. Think about how expensive a big HD tv was 6 years ago. Lots of folks couldn't afford one then but can now. Now you can get a 50 inch 1080p for under $600! If that is the top of the market that you can swing, what did you buy for $600 five years ago?

So actually, yes I can see the more well to do not replacing their TV because the top of the market TV that they got five years ago still hasn't been improved on by that much. But the low end has changed dramatically.

I'm definitely hoping Apple aren't going for an integrated TV, or that it is at least a part of a lineup with a set-top box as well, as I still see more potential in a box.

Personally I'm hoping Apple will beef up their standalone Apple TV offering, as with WiFi and Bluetooth, a better ARM processor and a full blown iOS running on it it could easily be made into a full-featured media centre that can also handle games. Even better if they could start pushing "Apple TV Aware" apps that can function as controllers for the TV version of a game playing on the big screen; imagine running an Unreal 3 engine game on the Apple TV (with iPad 4 specs it should easily handle 1080p) with no need to worry about battery life, while your iPhone or iPad runs a version of the same game that automatically switches its display to function as a controller.

With iCloud syncing it would be easy to then just pick up the game and continue on the go, and switch back to the big screen when you're back home. They could even make things friendly to multiple players by serving up temporary copies of a game so your friends can join in without buying the full copy of the game unless they want to keep playing themselves; it would just lock out the full game unless you pay for it, with an option to uninstall if you're done.

Hardware wise the only things Apple would need to do is make sure the Bluetooth is good enough to handle multiple inputs without latency, and put in some extra storage so you don't need a computer backing the whole thing. They could even leave "true" controllers to the third party manufacturers though hopefully with some API support to make it easier on developers to detect what a player is using.

It's the kind of thing that could easily allow for casual gaming on an Apple TV similar to the Wii. Should be plenty powerful for that style of gaming which I think would be nice and popular thanks to the existing app eco-system; if made nice and easy for developers it would be easy for people to enjoy all their favourite mobile games but with a bigger screen. The iPad 4 isn't exactly a slouch anyway, and an Apple TV could actually afford to offer even more power since it has no battery life concerns.

So yeah; I'd love to see the Apple TV with a media centre, and "pro" or gaming version, one for playback only, and one able to support games and other, more complex, apps. If they are going for an integrated unit (not so sure about that personally) then the lower-spec media centre could just be rolled into that with the standalone unit for gaming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisCW11

Also components do not need to match the dimensions of the TV considering they are sitting in a cabinet that contains the A/V receiver. My Apple TV box does not need to match the thinness of my TV.

That's not necessarily true; what if they wanted to integrate a Facetime camera into the Apple TV? If they do go for the gaming/apps route then a Facetime camera could be useful for games that want to take advantage of a camera.

I do agree on a lot of your other points, I personally doubt a thin unit as well, though the possibility of something that can easily fit in the empty space most TV's have underneath, where their stand is, or the possibility of mounting it on top could lend some credence to the possibility. But I only see that happening if Apple wants a camera on it, which I only see if they start supporting apps, so while an APPle TV is something I absolutely want to see, a lot of what this article suggests is dependent on that, as a bigger internal drive would be a bonus for app-use, but not much use for modern streaming.

That said, loads of people still don't have broadband that's all that fast, or reliable. For example, my cable broadband is sold as 20Mbps, but I can actually only achieve that speed for about 20 minutes after which I'm reduced to 5Mbps for five hours to the tune of fair-use; this is a huge problem for streaming movies as few programs offer speed limits which means that while I might initially buffer very quickly I may not download fast enough to keep playing without interruption. So my personal preference is to download in advance, but this isn't possible with just an Apple TV; I have to do it on my computer and stream to the TV, which isn't really ideal. Being able to do it from the Apple TV only would be much better.

We've been on DirecTV for the last 12 years, and cannot (and will not either!) switch to anything else. We have no landline internet capability, and won't anytime soon. Obviously, we are not good candidates for an Apple TV, since I don't see what capabilities it could possibly give us. We can't do on-line gaming, can't stream Netflix or Hulu, can't do on-demand, and the list goes on. Oh, and there are 30 million of us here in the US that are simply going to be left out in the cold. Oh well.

Well, no, if you can't stream anything you're really not a candidate for any sort of streaming content delivery device or service, which is likely to be the foundation for any Apple television product. On the other hand, if there are 30 million people in this predicament, that still leaves the other 90% of the U.S. as potential customers.

I'm somewhat mystified by people who say, in effect, "I'm in a weird situation affecting 10% of the population, and this new whatchamajiggie does NOTHING for me!" as if it's supposed to tell us something about the market at large. It just tells us you're a couple standard deviations from the mean, and the developer has already excluded you from their market analysis.

Law School would help you. Specifically a course on contracts/mergers & acquisitions.

A bit of a dull subject for me I'm afraid - certainly not something I'd be interested in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crackbookpro

Once again, if you are worried about the naming of the product as of now, you are not understanding the big nor small picture(macro nor micro).

Why exactly would I be worried about it? I was answering your question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crackbookpro

By the way, there are other companies with similar "iTV" trademarks, and Apple could pursue(acquire) that company, then negotiate trademark/copyright terms... Voila!

True. But none of said companies are:

A) Globally used and globally trademarked
and/or
B) In the same industry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crackbookpro

If they don't negotiate, then Apple could take them to court, and Apple could have an upper hand at that given point. (That's SPECULATION... but that is capitalism, and that is Apple.)

Could you explain how exactly that would work? Apple would have to take them to court in the UK. And given that ITV is a household name in the UK, the courts would rule in their favor. Think about it, if there was a discussion with someone saying "Hey did you watch <program> on ITV last night?" thats going to create confusion if you've got an ITV channel, and an ITV service providing television content.

Because of that, its a no brainer that they would never be granted a fair usage on the term 'ITV'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crackbookpro

To make things even more fun - tell us why or when you think there will be your Apple TV(or iTV)? Then, please elaborate on why we CANNOT call it "iTeeeVeee"?

They could call it iTeeeVeee if they wanted. But it sonds like something a child would come up with. Certainly not a name Apple would ever use.

I'll ask you again - why do you think they called it Apple TV in the first place. If they wanted it to be called iTV, dont you think they would have called it that from the get-go?

Why would macrumors even post this as this guy is clearly clueless on the state of living room connectivity.

I mean, first, Apple's entire strategy is moving towards Cloud services, so why would they build Terabyte storage in their TV's? A CEO of a cloud streaming service should be aware the local storage is not the future of online devices.

Also, I don't know anybody that plugs anything into their TV anymore. A TV plugs to an A/V receiver and components plug into that. My TV has one HDMI cable connected to the A/V receiver, period. If Apple is going to build a state of the art TV, then remove ALL inputs because any input is about supporting legacy uses of a TV. No need for co-ax and built-in cable, no need for supporting old inputs like component and composite, no need to support legacy which has been Apple's motivation for decades.

Also components do not need to match the dimensions of the TV considering they are sitting in a cabinet that contains the A/V receiver. My Apple TV box does not need to match the thinness of my TV.

This is why this guy is not CEO of Apple and why I have never heard of Brightcove until today and probably never will again.

No inputs? Uh hello, game consoles, DVD/BR players, and even computers. (eg. Apple's own Mac Mini has an HDMI output for plugging into an HDTV)

__________________

There is something deeply wrong with a society more offended by breasts than by entrails.Pebble SmartWatch | iPhone 5c | 11" Macbook Air '13 | HTPC | TV | Numerous Old Consoles

We've been on DirecTV for the last 12 years, and cannot (and will not either!) switch to anything else. We have no landline internet capability, and won't anytime soon. Obviously, we are not good candidates for an Apple TV, since I don't see what capabilities it could possibly give us. We can't do on-line gaming, can't stream Netflix or Hulu, can't do on-demand, and the list goes on. Oh, and there are 30 million of us here in the US that are simply going to be left out in the cold. Oh well.

Move to some place closer to where a larger number of humans live, then you will get more of the benefits of technology created by humans. Isolate yourself out away from other humans and then you have to fend for yourself. It is simple equation and not one that Apple can easily impact.

I'm somewhat shocked at the people eschewing the idea of a set-top-box. This is clearly a market that Apple will need to take by storm and succeed quickly if they are going to succeed at all. The only plausible way to do that is to deliver the package in the form of a low-cost STB that is easy to connect and start using.

I agree that there are significant advantages to an integrated television set, but the reality is that people will always have set-top-boxes for various tasks (Blu-ray player, audio receiver, etc). Over time the purposes will change and Apple can aspire to be the only box people need, but those that are even semi-serious about home entertainment will never have just a TV set or just a TV set with a single STB unless Apple is willing to integrate things that they have long ignored (legacy optical drives, hi-fi audio, etc).

As much as people make of Apple being "anti-consumer", having a set-top-box is actually more consumer friendly, as it will be easier to upgrade when new tech becomes available than a full-blown television. This also helps Apple with sales in the long-run.

Revolutionizing the TV/entertainment industry isn't going to start at a $1,999.99 price point. It is going to start at $99 or $199.

exactly...if they sell the full size tv at $1,999 it's just gonna be a hobby like it is today. I own quite a bit of apple products, but if they came out with an actual tv at a super high price I know for sure I wouldn't buy a 2nd one. Now if they made a set top box I can hook to my other 3 flat panels then i'll gladly throw down for those. People have more than 1 tv nowadays...so if you only sell the full size tv you are limiting how many you will sell.

People replace their television set every 4 years?! I do very well for myself, and I think my replacement cycle is nearly double that.

Same here. We had a 65" rear-projection HDTV from 2004 that we just replaced this year. The picture still looked great, and there was nothing wrong with the TV, other than the fact that it was enormous and took up too much space in the living room (big flat screens were still prohbitively expensive in 2004). We have a 37" flat-screen HDTV in our bedroom from 2007, and we have no plans to replace it before it dies a natural death. It's fine for watching the news and such before bed time.

The only reason I replace phones and tablets every two years is because the technology is still evolving rapidly, and such devices become annoyingly slow after a couple years. New models often have compelling new features, too. The iPhone 4's Retina display and high-quality camera were major reasons I upgraded from my iPhone 3G, in addition to the fact that the 3G had become slow. I'm still happy with my iPhone 4, but I'm going to upgrade to the 5 because AT&T sold a couple of cell towers in my area, and their 3G reception dropped from acceptable to awful. As for computers, I have a five-year-old Mac that I'm about to replace because it's very slow for what I use it for.

In other words, I don't upgrade frequently just for the sake of it. It's one thing to spend $300 on a new iPhone every couple years, but replacing an expensive TV? I don't think so. And if I knew going in that a three- or four-year-old Apple television probably wouldn't run the current OS very well, then I don't think I'd buy one in the first place.

It seems everyone wants to include a camera in this thing for video chat on the TV. Which means that the device must be located directly above or below the TV. That limits the form factor and also might create problems since the target audience for a device like this is a group that is largely using an AV receiver.

The cable companies will always require their own set top box, which they will give you for "free" but actually make quite a profit off of. That is what Apple is struggling against and also why other TV items have largely failed to really catch on. It is tough to compete against a device that is "free" and required to be connected to your TV. Google couldn't do it. TiVO was awesome, but it couldn't get folks to buy it in large numbers. Apple is selling a neat little device but partly only because of its impulse buy level $99 price. I've got three of them myself, one on each floor of my house attached to the projector or TV located on that floor.

I mean, first, Apple's entire strategy is moving towards Cloud services, so why would they build Terabyte storage in their TV's? A CEO of a cloud streaming service should be aware the local storage is not the future of online devices.

To play ball with content providers and eliminate other set top boxes, there will need to be some significant storage for reliable DVR functionality. And also to store Video Games, which was a large part of this guys pitch.

If your connection goes out for whatever reason, you're left high and dry with 0 content for your presumably very expensive display.

Quote:

Also, I don't know anybody that plugs anything into their TV anymore. A TV plugs to an A/V receiver and components plug into that. My TV has one HDMI cable connected to the A/V receiver, period. If Apple is going to build a state of the art TV, then remove ALL inputs because any input is about supporting legacy uses of a TV. No need for co-ax and built-in cable, no need for supporting old inputs like component and composite, no need to support legacy which has been Apple's motivation for decades.

I see your side of the argument, but plenty of people don't even have AV receivers, let alone wire them properly. I don't know what Apple's play would be here, honestly. They could do anything and be successful as long as the connection doesn't cost 50 dollars per cable.

Quote:

Also components do not need to match the dimensions of the TV considering they are sitting in a cabinet that contains the A/V receiver. My Apple TV box does not need to match the thinness of my TV.

Same as above... I think you might believe that you're optimized situation is the norm. I don't think that is the case.

If Apple were to make a display, surely they would want a single connection, ala iMac. I'm unsure where everything else goes...

Apple is too smart to expect consumers to give up things they've become accustomed to (dvr, blu ray, 5.1 audio etc) without a reliable alternative that is easy to understand... And the allthingsd article seems to "miss" on how that will play out.